Ted Cruz is a Harvard lawyer whose heart in the right place, nevertheless, I am not sure his suggestion will rein in Supreme Court justices —— LAWYERS ALL —— let alone rein in lesser judges —— LAWYERS ALL. The question should be: What is to be done about lawyers? The answer is not easy. Just about everybody in Congress, and in every state legislature, is a lawyer. I suspect the percentage is the same in local governments.

Lawyers are trained to feed on tax dollars; so I cannot envision more than a baker’s dozen even admitting that lawyers are at fault. One major fault is that conservatives and conservatism suffers the most at the hands of lawyers, yet a vast majority of Americans hold conservative political views. Perhaps that is why judges who control the legal profession along with media liberals despise the Tea Party Movement.

Let’s assume Tea Partiers now have enough strength to can give Cruz the Republican party’s nomination, and let’s further assume that the Congress will go along with President Cruz and Tea Party values, it will not change a thing because the federal courts now overrule the Congress. It follows that a simple majority of High Court liberals will overrule a president they disagree with.

My point: Tea Party conservatives have absolutely no say in appointing federal judges. That is not likely to change anytime soon because lawyers will never release their grip on who appoints judges.

With Tea Party conservatives in mind, I’ve edited some comments and thoughts from previous threads that might give Tea Partiers some idea of what they are facing:

It is a widely agreed upon proposition that the federal judiciary in our country is out of control; literally out of control. Federal judges increasingly act as if there are no limits to their authority to not only interpret, but to make and impose law.

A Proposed Constitutional Amendment for Reining in Judges
By Tim Dunkin February 19, 2015

Tim Dunkin’s proposed constitutional amendment does not stand a prayer in hell of reining in federal judges so long as the American people separate them from judges in local and state courts.

The article above and two more articles cover abuses by judges that are seldom mentioned by the media. Two articles by Selwyn Duke are most informative. Note that Thomas Jefferson is now under serious attack from the Left:

Our Constitution has become a suicide pact.

That’s the view of Thomas Jefferson, expressed in an 1819 letter to jurist Spencer Roane, when he said “If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se” (suicide pact). The opinion Jefferson referred to is the legitimacy of judicial review, the idea, as he put it, that “gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres.” He warned that accepting such a doctrine makes “the Judiciary a despotic branch” that acts as “an oligarchy.”

February 20, 2015
Why not one governor is qualified to be president
By Selwyn Duke

John Marshall’s court established a judicial priesthood in Marbury v. Madison. A priesthood that is now every bit as totalitarian as ever was any priesthood in history.

I like to think that Thomas Jefferson saw it coming. I also believe that John Marshall was a dirty little moralist who so despised a Constitution that was created without his approval he built a framework for one reason only —— to empower priests in the federal courts. Ayn Rand was surely talking about John Marshall’s intention to give priests the authority to bring back every one of mankind’s horrors and destruction in this country:

Bob Unruh’s piece covers a ruling that shows priests now sit on benches in every court. Total the Christian clergy, Rabbis, Muslim clerics, etc., and they do not equal all of America’s priests dictating moral conduct from the bench.

A judge in Washington on Wednesday authorized the “personal ruin” of a florist whose Christian faith prevented her from promoting a same-sex wedding and who was sued by both the state and the homosexual couple.

The things one judge is doing to Barronelle Stutzmanis is only the tip of judicial moral decay. Every case decided by a judge’s personality bypasses the law. The cases I mention are extremely important, but they cannot stem the tidal wave of priests IN GOVERNMENT swamping the country.

Those all to few lawyers who try to stop abuse by judges make a big mistake when they fight abuse based on the First Amendment. The few cases I linked would be extremely important if just one of them ever gets to the SCOTUS combining the First Amendment with these two:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.​

NOTE: Congress passed a vile law —— the ACA. The High Court then circumvented the Constitution in upholding the ACA —— TWICE —— without ever addressing the meaning of involuntary servitude in the XIII Amendment.

One possible ruling in involuntary servitude cases says that artists must work for anybody willing to hire them. That is the exact opposite of the garbage the National Endowment for the Arts promotes to justify the filth government-approved artists produce with tax dollars.

Another possible ruling says artists can decide for themselves which is more in line with NEA thinking, but deciding for themselves flies in the face of gay Rights, equal Rights, same-sex marriage and the rest of liberalism’s blah, blah, blah.

A third possible ruling identifies two sets of rules; one for government “artists” and another set of rules for private sector artists.

In every case of involuntary servitude the XIII Amendment was the way to go because it protects every American when religion is not involved.

Liberals wield artistic freedom like a club the same way Communist teachers wield academic freedom every time they want to take a liberty away from everybody else. Defeating liberalism depends upon defeating Socialist priests more than defeating an ideology:

Legal Counsel Jim Campbell added that every artist “must be free to create work that expresses what he or she believes and not be forced by the government to express opposing views.”

Put the issue in perspective with one question: Did Nazis judges have the Right to order Picasso to paint their morality rather than paint his own in Guernica?

​

Liberals always pick the part they like:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

The First Amendment has become meaningless. The government can infringe on anyone’s religious freedom as they will with the homosexual ruling.

The issue is whether or not Socialist priests can order the way Americans must behave? The same issue is at play in the ACA. Can Socialist priests order you to purchase anything? The answer is unquestionably YES. When framed in those words you can clearly see the evil intent behind John Roberts first calling the “forced purchase of healthcare insurance” a tax.

Forcing Americans to work for Socialism and strangers through the Affordable Care Act is surely as offensive and dehumanizing as is forcing a baker to bake a cake.

The XIII Amendment should be enough to hold judges in check. Apparently it does not. Question: Where and when did judges at every level get the authority to order law-abiding Americans to work at anything?

Incidentally, an administrative law judge is a federal judge.

. . . it seems that Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer has ordered Mr. Jack Phillips into a condition of involuntary servitude. Apparently Judge Spencer did not find Mr. Phillips guilty of a crime, as required in the 13th Amendment, yet ordered that he do work for the plaintiffs anyway.

In other words, the actual ruling requires the baker to bake the cake or face fines and potentially jail time. That sounds a lot like coercion to most people.

January 9, 2014
Does the Constitution Force Bakers to Bake?
By Jim Yardley

I know that Socialist priests can only govern by telling everyone how to live their lives. Legislating love and dictating behavior are the foundations of Socialism/Communism. That is why the answer to the question of where and when did judges get the authority to order law-abiding Americans to work at anything is so important to Tea Partiers in the fight for individual liberties and limited government?

Irrespective of the issues, or how the judges get to the bench, the cases the SCOTUS agree to hear will be decided by 5 judges —— activist liberal judges more often than not:

Defending the First Amendment has become a twisted joke. Governor Mike Pence claimed he was defending freedom of religion, while he ran for the tall grass the minute he had to challenge every judge who orders involuntary servitude —— SLAVERY IS THE ACCURATE DESCRIPTION. In short: The 8th and 13th Amendments override the First Amendment every time.

Judges imposing forced labor on an individual’s freedom of religion is surely cruel and unusual punishment without using whips and chains.

In plain English, every law that is passed becomes “appropriate legislation” so long as a judge says it is so. Note that calling “Not doing something” became a crime a judge can punish.

Congress gave sick judges like John Roberts & Company the weapon priests needed to tear down freedom of religion, while perverting the 8th, and the 13th amendments. Forcing Americans to purchase products pales beside the inevitable next step —— INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that the individual health insurance mandates included in every health reform bill, which require Americans to have insurance, were “like paying taxes.” He added that Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare.”

I was floored when talking heads gave so much coverage to the pizza guy. I wagered that the story would be ignored because there is not an actual pizza case in the court —— at least not YET.

The way media reported the pizza story is annoying to me because media mouths refuse to touch the 8th and the 13th Amendments in those cases that have been in the courts for several years, yet never a word was heard about involuntary servitude. Pizza reportage is no different than the other cases of involuntary servitude before it even gets to court. Happily, Joseph Farah touched on the heart of the matter:

Have you noticed we didn’t have any notable conflicts with non-discrimination laws until we decided to include among the protected groups one that is behavior-based?

XXXXX​

. . . the advent of laws and judicial rulings prohibiting discrimination against people based on lifestyle choices and behavior, things got, predictably, a little more complicated.

XXXXX​

We are rapidly giving up our individual liberties in favor of collective coercion overseen by state power that is unaccountably lethal.

Involuntary servitude infested ‘civilization’ since the dawn of time; so it can hardly be called complicated after all of the eons forced labor has been embodied in the law in every Judicial Code of Conduct ever written —— with the single exception of America’s founding documents.

Admittedly, it took a while to abolish the most brutal form of slavery. To be precise, replacing involuntary servitude enforced by a whip was replaced by legislated love. Look at it this way. No priesthood creates freedom from organized religion. Conversely, America’s Socialist priesthood created a slave class; i.e., a parasite class that can only acquire individual liberties from legislated love or not at all.

Finally, Socialism/Communism is lethal because Communists, indeed every priesthood, can only govern when a free people agree to behave by the dictates legislated love demands —— i.e. telling everyone what they must do rather than telling everyone what they MUST NOT DO.

It is worth repeating Eric Hoffer —— in large font:

THE BASIC TEST OF FREEDOM IS PERHAPS LESS IN WHAT WE ARE FREE TO DO THAN IN WHAT WE ARE FREE NOT TO DO. IT IS THE FREEDOM TO REFRAIN, WITHDRAW AND ABSTAIN WHICH MAKES A TOTALITARIAN REGIME IMPOSSIBLE.

Ted Cruz is a Harvard lawyer whose heart in the right place, nevertheless, I am not sure his suggestion will rein in Supreme Court justices —— LAWYERS ALL —— let alone rein in lesser judges —— LAWYERS ALL. The question should be: What is to be done about lawyers? The answer is not easy. Just about everybody in Congress, and in every state legislature, is a lawyer. I suspect the percentage is the same in local governments.

Lawyers are trained to feed on tax dollars; so I cannot envision more than a baker’s dozen even admitting that lawyers are at fault. One major fault is that conservatives and conservatism suffers the most at the hands of lawyers, yet a vast majority of Americans hold conservative political views. Perhaps that is why judges who control the legal profession along with media liberals despise the Tea Party Movement.

Let’s assume Tea Partiers now have enough strength to can give Cruz the Republican party’s nomination, and let’s further assume that the Congress will go along with President Cruz and Tea Party values, it will not change a thing because the federal courts now overrule the Congress. It follows that a simple majority of High Court liberals will overrule a president they disagree with.

My point: Tea Party conservatives have absolutely no say in appointing federal judges. That is not likely to change anytime soon because lawyers will never release their grip on who appoints judges.

With Tea Party conservatives in mind, I’ve edited some comments and thoughts from previous threads that might give Tea Partiers some idea of what they are facing:

It is a widely agreed upon proposition that the federal judiciary in our country is out of control; literally out of control. Federal judges increasingly act as if there are no limits to their authority to not only interpret, but to make and impose law.

A Proposed Constitutional Amendment for Reining in Judges
By Tim Dunkin February 19, 2015

Tim Dunkin’s proposed constitutional amendment does not stand a prayer in hell of reining in federal judges so long as the American people separate them from judges in local and state courts.

The article above and two more articles cover abuses by judges that are seldom mentioned by the media. Two articles by Selwyn Duke are most informative. Note that Thomas Jefferson is now under serious attack from the Left:

Our Constitution has become a suicide pact.

That’s the view of Thomas Jefferson, expressed in an 1819 letter to jurist Spencer Roane, when he said “If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se” (suicide pact). The opinion Jefferson referred to is the legitimacy of judicial review, the idea, as he put it, that “gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres.” He warned that accepting such a doctrine makes “the Judiciary a despotic branch” that acts as “an oligarchy.”

February 20, 2015
Why not one governor is qualified to be president
By Selwyn Duke

John Marshall’s court established a judicial priesthood in Marbury v. Madison. A priesthood that is now every bit as totalitarian as ever was any priesthood in history.

I like to think that Thomas Jefferson saw it coming. I also believe that John Marshall was a dirty little moralist who so despised a Constitution that was created without his approval he built a framework for one reason only —— to empower priests in the federal courts. Ayn Rand was surely talking about John Marshall’s intention to give priests the authority to bring back every one of mankind’s horrors and destruction in this country:

Bob Unruh’s piece covers a ruling that shows priests now sit on benches in every court. Total the Christian clergy, Rabbis, Muslim clerics, etc., and they do not equal all of America’s priests dictating moral conduct from the bench.

A judge in Washington on Wednesday authorized the “personal ruin” of a florist whose Christian faith prevented her from promoting a same-sex wedding and who was sued by both the state and the homosexual couple.

The things one judge is doing to Barronelle Stutzmanis is only the tip of judicial moral decay. Every case decided by a judge’s personality bypasses the law. The cases I mention are extremely important, but they cannot stem the tidal wave of priests IN GOVERNMENT swamping the country.

Those all to few lawyers who try to stop abuse by judges make a big mistake when they fight abuse based on the First Amendment. The few cases I linked would be extremely important if just one of them ever gets to the SCOTUS combining the First Amendment with these two:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.​

NOTE: Congress passed a vile law —— the ACA. The High Court then circumvented the Constitution in upholding the ACA —— TWICE —— without ever addressing the meaning of involuntary servitude in the XIII Amendment.

One possible ruling in involuntary servitude cases says that artists must work for anybody willing to hire them. That is the exact opposite of the garbage the National Endowment for the Arts promotes to justify the filth government-approved artists produce with tax dollars.

Another possible ruling says artists can decide for themselves which is more in line with NEA thinking, but deciding for themselves flies in the face of gay Rights, equal Rights, same-sex marriage and the rest of liberalism’s blah, blah, blah.

A third possible ruling identifies two sets of rules; one for government “artists” and another set of rules for private sector artists.

In every case of involuntary servitude the XIII Amendment was the way to go because it protects every American when religion is not involved.

Liberals wield artistic freedom like a club the same way Communist teachers wield academic freedom every time they want to take a liberty away from everybody else. Defeating liberalism depends upon defeating Socialist priests more than defeating an ideology:

Legal Counsel Jim Campbell added that every artist “must be free to create work that expresses what he or she believes and not be forced by the government to express opposing views.”

Put the issue in perspective with one question: Did Nazis judges have the Right to order Picasso to paint their morality rather than paint his own in Guernica?

​

Liberals always pick the part they like:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

The First Amendment has become meaningless. The government can infringe on anyone’s religious freedom as they will with the homosexual ruling.

The issue is whether or not Socialist priests can order the way Americans must behave? The same issue is at play in the ACA. Can Socialist priests order you to purchase anything? The answer is unquestionably YES. When framed in those words you can clearly see the evil intent behind John Roberts first calling the “forced purchase of healthcare insurance” a tax.

Forcing Americans to work for Socialism and strangers through the Affordable Care Act is surely as offensive and dehumanizing as is forcing a baker to bake a cake.

The XIII Amendment should be enough to hold judges in check. Apparently it does not. Question: Where and when did judges at every level get the authority to order law-abiding Americans to work at anything?

Incidentally, an administrative law judge is a federal judge.

. . . it seems that Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer has ordered Mr. Jack Phillips into a condition of involuntary servitude. Apparently Judge Spencer did not find Mr. Phillips guilty of a crime, as required in the 13th Amendment, yet ordered that he do work for the plaintiffs anyway.

In other words, the actual ruling requires the baker to bake the cake or face fines and potentially jail time. That sounds a lot like coercion to most people.

January 9, 2014
Does the Constitution Force Bakers to Bake?
By Jim Yardley

I know that Socialist priests can only govern by telling everyone how to live their lives. Legislating love and dictating behavior are the foundations of Socialism/Communism. That is why the answer to the question of where and when did judges get the authority to order law-abiding Americans to work at anything is so important to Tea Partiers in the fight for individual liberties and limited government?

Irrespective of the issues, or how the judges get to the bench, the cases the SCOTUS agree to hear will be decided by 5 judges —— activist liberal judges more often than not:

Defending the First Amendment has become a twisted joke. Governor Mike Pence claimed he was defending freedom of religion, while he ran for the tall grass the minute he had to challenge every judge who orders involuntary servitude —— SLAVERY IS THE ACCURATE DESCRIPTION. In short: The 8th and 13th Amendments override the First Amendment every time.

Judges imposing forced labor on an individual’s freedom of religion is surely cruel and unusual punishment without using whips and chains.

In plain English, every law that is passed becomes “appropriate legislation” so long as a judge says it is so. Note that calling “Not doing something” became a crime a judge can punish.

Congress gave sick judges like John Roberts & Company the weapon priests needed to tear down freedom of religion, while perverting the 8th, and the 13th amendments. Forcing Americans to purchase products pales beside the inevitable next step —— INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that the individual health insurance mandates included in every health reform bill, which require Americans to have insurance, were “like paying taxes.” He added that Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare.”

I was floored when talking heads gave so much coverage to the pizza guy. I wagered that the story would be ignored because there is not an actual pizza case in the court —— at least not YET.

The way media reported the pizza story is annoying to me because media mouths refuse to touch the 8th and the 13th Amendments in those cases that have been in the courts for several years, yet never a word was heard about involuntary servitude. Pizza reportage is no different than the other cases of involuntary servitude before it even gets to court. Happily, Joseph Farah touched on the heart of the matter:

Have you noticed we didn’t have any notable conflicts with non-discrimination laws until we decided to include among the protected groups one that is behavior-based?

XXXXX​

. . . the advent of laws and judicial rulings prohibiting discrimination against people based on lifestyle choices and behavior, things got, predictably, a little more complicated.

XXXXX​

We are rapidly giving up our individual liberties in favor of collective coercion overseen by state power that is unaccountably lethal.

Involuntary servitude infested ‘civilization’ since the dawn of time; so it can hardly be called complicated after all of the eons forced labor has been embodied in the law in every Judicial Code of Conduct ever written —— with the single exception of America’s founding documents.

Admittedly, it took a while to abolish the most brutal form of slavery. To be precise, replacing involuntary servitude enforced by a whip was replaced by legislated love. Look at it this way. No priesthood creates freedom from organized religion. Conversely, America’s Socialist priesthood created a slave class; i.e., a parasite class that can only acquire individual liberties from legislated love or not at all.

Finally, Socialism/Communism is lethal because Communists, indeed every priesthood, can only govern when a free people agree to behave by the dictates legislated love demands —— i.e. telling everyone what they must do rather than telling everyone what they MUST NOT DO.

It is worth repeating Eric Hoffer —— in large font:

THE BASIC TEST OF FREEDOM IS PERHAPS LESS IN WHAT WE ARE FREE TO DO THAN IN WHAT WE ARE FREE NOT TO DO. IT IS THE FREEDOM TO REFRAIN, WITHDRAW AND ABSTAIN WHICH MAKES A TOTALITARIAN REGIME IMPOSSIBLE.

Click to expand...

Not going to happen. Not even a little tiny bit. More to the point, Cruz knows it not only isn't going to happen but would be bad for the country if it did. All he's doing is playing to his base in a blatant and utterly dishonest political move.

More to the point, Cruz knows it not only isn't going to happen but would be bad for the country if it did. All he's doing is playing to his base in a blatant and utterly dishonest political move.

Click to expand...

To JakeStarkey & PratchettFan: You already live in a country where 90 percent of the judges and legislators are Socialist priests. So how would you like to live in a country where every judge and legislator is a Muslim cleric, a Rabbi, or a Catholic priest? Should Cruz, or anybody else, fail to strip judges of their UNCONSTITUTIONAL authority you lose as much as Tea Party conservatives lose. That is assuming you resent being governed by sick moralists telling you how to live.

Bob Unruh’s piece covers a ruling that shows priests now sit on benches in every court. Total the Christian clergy, Rabbis, Muslim clerics, etc., and they do not equal all of America’s priests dictating moral conduct from the bench.

Click to expand...

The lawyers are coming out from under their rocks. One judge/lawyer took the first step on the road to protecting the entire priesthood:

In response to a protester who shouted that the judicial system is “corrupt,” a Florida judge ordered the arrest of anyone outside the courthouse, including on certain public sidewalks, who “call(s) into question the integrity of the court or any of its judges.”

The order was released July 1 by Judge Mark Mahon of the state’s Fourth Judicial Circuit.

Among others, it was addressed to bar associations, senior judges, administrative judges, magistrates, public defenders, state attorneys, clerks, lawyers and the sheriffs in Jacksonville, Clay and Nassau counties.

Even if protestors chanted “Lawyers” instead of the word judges, lawyer Mahon’s order shielded every lawyer/priest and the faithful. Put it in perspective by looking at priesthoods with authority in every society in every time.

Finally, lawyer Mahon extended his physical structure —— the courthouse —— to an area beyond his chapel. Turning a few sidewalks into sacred ground is only the beginning. In every theocracy in every country speaking evil of priests, or their religion —— everywhere —— ends with infidels on the rack.

To JakeStarkey: I assume you mean the SCOTUS will overturn Judge Mahon. If that is what you mean I have my doubts. Happily, it will not get there:

A Florida judge has quickly backtracked on his order barring people from criticizing the court on its property but not quickly enough to avoid a lawsuit over the speech restrictions.​

Incidentally, it is 4 ½ Supreme Court justices that make me think Mahon’s order would have stood up. Roberts and Kennedy are ½-ass —— either one can be counted on to provide the fifth vote.

Finally, Ginsburg behaves as though powers are vested in her to do as she pleases. Every liberal judge believes that the Constitution is akin to a sales flyer one finds stuck under a windshield wiper advertising their personal beliefs.

And WND reported when Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore said Ginsburg could be impeached for her public advocacy of “gay” rights while the court was reviewing that very issue.

XXXXX​

The controversy resurfaced shortly before the decision was announced, because even after being told of the appearance of a conflict of interest, Ginsburg again officiated at a same-sex wedding, as the New York Times reported.

The paper said that with “a sly look and special emphasis on the word ‘Constitution,’ Justice Ginsburg said that she was pronouncing the two men married by the powers vested in her by the Constitution of the United States.”

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!